(05-07-2015 08:45 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 04:28 PM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 09:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 09:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  [quote='gassman' pid='12036679' dateline='1430959220']

Western Conference - keeps Sun Belt name (can change name later):

UTEP
NMSU
UTSA
Texas State
Rice
Louisiana
S. Miss
N. Texas
LA Tech
Ark State

Eastern Conference - CUSA

Marshall
ODU
Charlotte
W. KY
MTSU
FIU
FAU
App State
GA State
GA Southern
S. Alabama
Troy

Move one from east to west, Play 10 conf games against your own side, and 2 OCC games. scheduling becomes easy. Conf name CUSA, divisions are Sun and the belt. enough inventory to break it out 2 or 3 ways.

Drawing up nice neat alignments ignores reality.

Overlay AAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt on a map.

You don't see Houston and Rice in the same league, you don't see LaTech and ULM in the same league, you don't see SMU and UNT in the same league.

The closest pairings are FAU and FIU and they are about 50 miles apart and in different media markets. UCF and USF about 100 miles, different markets, WKU and MTSU about 100 miles different markets.

No one is going to realign voluntarily into leagues that place them in the same market with a school.

(05-07-2015 07:56 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 04:28 PM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 09:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 09:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 07:40 PM)gassman Wrote:  The cost savings would be massive and the networks are hungry for inventory.

The cost savings would not be massive in dollars. If Denver can be an associate Big East member for lacrosse and Arizona State be an associate Big Ten member for hockey, then CUSA schools can suck it up and travel to El Paso and Norfolk. If regionalization were a big financial windfall, CUSA and the Sun Belt would have realigned into a new Southwest Conference and a new south-eastern conference. But they didn't because the money saved by Louisiana Tech having short trips to Lafayette and Monroe is not enough to overcome the snobbery of saying that Lousiana Tech is a higher-class athletic program than UL or ULM. Remember, Louisiana Tech suffered from rough travel for years in the WAC rather than swallow their pride and join the Sun Belt with ULL, ULM, North Texas, Arkansas State, MTSU and Troy as easy trips.

If anyone who mattered cared about regionalization, you wouldn't have every single FBS conference stretched across multiple time zones. (Wait, the ACC is still an exception. The Boston-to-Miami-to-Louisville and South Bend ACC).

And the AAC folks were counting on getting a financial windfall from TV networks desperate for inventory, so was the MountUSA merger project. They were, to say the least, disappointed.

Travel savings massive? Nope. But despite the common flip message board response of once you get on the plane it doesn't matter, fails to understand that charters charge by the hour, longer costs more, every meal off campus on these trips is the responsibility of the school in addition to the flat rate paid for a meal plan on campus. One added road meal for baseball will run you $300, football can run $10,000 to $15,000 depending on whether you are handing guys a sack lunch or getting it catered at your hotel will run $10k to $15k. If your equipment truck has to drive longer than the one day limit for a CDL holder, you have to have two CDL holders in the truck and fuel will cost you roughly 50 cents per mile. One trip of 1,000 miles is going to cost you $1,000 in fuel alone.

Depending how many plane trips become bus trips a typical FBS playing the 8 closest FBS schools rather than their conference slate can save $150,000 to $300,000 a year across all sports. That's not massive but if you TV dollars aren't improved being spread out, why not divert that money to other purposes?

Proximity isn't the be-all end-all but it can increase your local ticket sales effort if the name is better known. Counting on sales from visiting fans? That's a tougher call and depends greatly on the visiting team's fan base culture. AState and MTSU played for all the marbles in the Sun Belt on a day with perfect weather and MTSU brought far fewer fans than USM did a few years earlier for just another non-conference game even though USM is an hour further away. That's not a knock on the Blue Raiders, its just a difference in fan bases.

My thought is that if Fox (or NBC) are serious about competing with ESPN, CUSA could get a great TV deal and larger could be more valuable because of the dearth of inventory of the type held by Fox and NBC to fill in with. But if they aren't taking that path, CUSA might be better off hoping someone else wants to leave and get the number of total teams down.

More regional rivalries to make up G5 conferences, for reasons you pointed out, make the most sense. Perhaps the SBC and CUSA should split along regional lines and form Western and Eastern based conferences.

Western Conference - keeps Sun Belt name (can change name later):

UTEP
NMSU
UTSA
Texas State
Rice
Louisiana
S. Miss
N. Texas
LA Tech
Ark State

Eastern Conference - CUSA

Marshall
ODU
Charlotte
W. KY
MTSU
FIU
FAU
App State
GA State
GA Southern
S. Alabama
Troy

No.

The only people I ever notice promoting these restructuring schemes are Sun Belt fans. What is your problem with the Sun Belt? C-USA West is fine the way it is. C-USA West doesn't need to add ULL, ASU, TSU, NMSU, or ULM (who you failed to include), or change our name to the Sun Belt.

Some like to call C-USA 3.0 the new Sun Belt, but that isn't the case in C-USA West. Right now, North Texas is the only former Sun Belt school in the division. LA Tech and UTSA came from the WAC. C-USA West is a solid division. No need to change it.

The point was to create more regional based conferences that can generate actual rivalries, fans can more easily travel to games which generates better attendance with greater revenue, and of course lower travel costs as a result which greatly impacts the spring sports. Western and Eastern based conferences can add or subtract members as best fits their footprints. The Western Division of CUSA could be strengthened with western schools added to it. The same for the Eastern Division. Don't expect everyone to agree with it. Particular biases notwithstanding, regional conferences make much more sense, especially for G schools.

(05-07-2015 10:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 04:57 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 12:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  MAC is getting a reported $10 million for 12 teams, CUSA $14 million for 14 teams. The question is does losing 7 (or 8 with UAB if expelled) of the 12 members from that $14 million deal impact the price?

Do you lose sleep at night obsessing about C-USA? It must be like that dream where just as you're about to get the girl.....you wake up.

Not as twisted as your freak obsession with me weirdo.

you think you're being subtle but deep inside your cheering against the conference.....it just keeps coming out over and over again. So not obsessed by you but with your obsession to plant seeds of doubt with the new memebers of C-USA. Keep it up and I'll continue to call you out on it.

(05-08-2015 11:09 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 10:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 04:57 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 12:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  MAC is getting a reported $10 million for 12 teams, CUSA $14 million for 14 teams. The question is does losing 7 (or 8 with UAB if expelled) of the 12 members from that $14 million deal impact the price?

Do you lose sleep at night obsessing about C-USA? It must be like that dream where just as you're about to get the girl.....you wake up.

Not as twisted as your freak obsession with me weirdo.

you think you're being subtle but deep inside your cheering against the conference.....it just keeps coming out over and over again. So not obsessed by you but with your obsession to plant seeds of doubt with the new memebers of C-USA. Keep it up and I'll continue to call you out on it.

The problem is you are moron seeing someone against you. Keep checking the shadows freak.

(05-08-2015 11:37 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The problem is you are moron seeing someone against you. Keep checking the shadows freak.

Not against me; I could care less about that. But the conference, now that concerns me. Shame that you've digressed to name calling when all I'm doing is pointing out that you keep planting the seed for a C-USA haircut with its new t.v. contract. We get it, say it once and stop dwelling on it (unless that's your m.o.).

(05-08-2015 09:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Drawing up nice neat alignments ignores reality.

Overlay AAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt on a map.

You don't see Houston and Rice in the same league, you don't see LaTech and ULM in the same league, you don't see SMU and UNT in the same league.

The closest pairings are FAU and FIU and they are about 50 miles apart and in different media markets. UCF and USF about 100 miles, different markets, WKU and MTSU about 100 miles different markets.

No one is going to realign voluntarily into leagues that place them in the same market with a school.

Again, your statement is too general, even if it turns out being right. Markets are different sizes.

A conference may take a second school in the same, large market over a school in a new, small market. Because the increase in the large market penetration from adding the second school could be more valuable than adding the small market.

Theoretically correct. But not sure id it's used in practice.

(05-08-2015 12:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 09:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Drawing up nice neat alignments ignores reality.

Overlay AAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt on a map.

You don't see Houston and Rice in the same league, you don't see LaTech and ULM in the same league, you don't see SMU and UNT in the same league.

The closest pairings are FAU and FIU and they are about 50 miles apart and in different media markets. UCF and USF about 100 miles, different markets, WKU and MTSU about 100 miles different markets.

No one is going to realign voluntarily into leagues that place them in the same market with a school.

Again, your statement is too general, even if it turns out being right. Markets are different sizes.

A conference may take a second school in the same, large market over a school in a new, small market. Because the increase in the large market penetration from adding the second school could be more valuable than adding the small market.

Theoretically correct. But not sure id it's used in practice.

None of the proposed Western Conference teams are in the same market. So what if there are 5 teams from Texas and 2 from Louisiana. Just about every P5 conference has 2 teams from each state. Some have 2 teams from the same metro city area, i.e. UCLA & USC, UNC & Duke, Cal & Stanford. Look at these other conferences, especially North Carolina with 4 teams within a few miles of each other.

Big 12 - 4 teams from Texas
PAC 12 - 4 teams from California
MAC - 6 teams from Ohio; 3 from Michigan
ACC - 4 teams from NC

Unlike P5 conferences today who have all the money, a strong regional conference is where G5 schools need to be to stay financially healthy, develop true rivalries, allow fans to travel and develop strong bowl ties in its geographic region.

Actually, Houston, Rice and SMU still own the rights to the SWC since the others waived the rights. Those 3 could restart the SWC in all sports again. But, it would be new lineup with more Texas schools, Tulsa, Tulane, La. Tech, Arkansas State, New Mexico State and Missouri State. UTEP could go to MWC.

(05-08-2015 10:05 AM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 07:56 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 04:28 PM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  [quote='arkstfan' pid='12037577' dateline='1431009058']
[quote='johnbragg' pid='12036910' dateline='1430965463']


Western Conference - keeps Sun Belt name (can change name later):

UTEP
NMSU
UTSA
Texas State
Rice
Louisiana
S. Miss
N. Texas
LA Tech
Ark State

Eastern Conference - CUSA

Marshall
ODU
Charlotte
W. KY
MTSU
FIU
FAU
App State
GA State
GA Southern
S. Alabama
Troy

No.

The only people I ever notice promoting these restructuring schemes are Sun Belt fans. What is your problem with the Sun Belt? C-USA West is fine the way it is. C-USA West doesn't need to add ULL, ASU, TSU, NMSU, or ULM (who you failed to include), or change our name to the Sun Belt.

Some like to call C-USA 3.0 the new Sun Belt, but that isn't the case in C-USA West. Right now, North Texas is the only former Sun Belt school in the division. LA Tech and UTSA came from the WAC. C-USA West is a solid division. No need to change it.

The point was to create more regional based conferences that can generate actual rivalries, fans can more easily travel to games which generates better attendance with greater revenue, and of course lower travel costs as a result which greatly impacts the spring sports. Western and Eastern based conferences can add or subtract members as best fits their footprints. The Western Division of CUSA could be strengthened with western schools added to it. The same for the Eastern Division. Don't expect everyone to agree with it. Particular biases notwithstanding, regional conferences make much more sense, especially for G schools.

C-USA West is already regional and provides easy travel for most of the fans (sorry UTEP). I think your idea would weaken all our programs by creating conferences that would be too regional. In the current state of college football, a conference that is too compact and regional will struggle to command any real value for their television rights, and see very few games broadcast. That would put its programs at a greater disadvantage in recruiting and perception. C-USA is fine the way it is, and C-USA West is already an exciting fun regional division.

(05-08-2015 08:33 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 10:05 AM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 07:56 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 04:28 PM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  [quote='arkstfan' pid='12037577' dateline='1431009058']
[quote='johnbragg' pid='12036910' dateline='1430965463']


Western Conference - keeps Sun Belt name (can change name later):

UTEP
NMSU
UTSA
Texas State
Rice
Louisiana
S. Miss
N. Texas
LA Tech
Ark State

Eastern Conference - CUSA

Marshall
ODU
Charlotte
W. KY
MTSU
FIU
FAU
App State
GA State
GA Southern
S. Alabama
Troy

No.

The only people I ever notice promoting these restructuring schemes are Sun Belt fans. What is your problem with the Sun Belt? C-USA West is fine the way it is. C-USA West doesn't need to add ULL, ASU, TSU, NMSU, or ULM (who you failed to include), or change our name to the Sun Belt.

Some like to call C-USA 3.0 the new Sun Belt, but that isn't the case in C-USA West. Right now, North Texas is the only former Sun Belt school in the division. LA Tech and UTSA came from the WAC. C-USA West is a solid division. No need to change it.

The point was to create more regional based conferences that can generate actual rivalries, fans can more easily travel to games which generates better attendance with greater revenue, and of course lower travel costs as a result which greatly impacts the spring sports. Western and Eastern based conferences can add or subtract members as best fits their footprints. The Western Division of CUSA could be strengthened with western schools added to it. The same for the Eastern Division. Don't expect everyone to agree with it. Particular biases notwithstanding, regional conferences make much more sense, especially for G schools.

C-USA West is already regional and provides easy travel for most of the fans (sorry UTEP). I think your idea would weaken all our programs by creating conferences that would be too regional. In the current state of college football, a conference that is too compact and regional will struggle to command any real value for their television rights, and see very few games broadcast. That would put its programs at a greater disadvantage in recruiting and perception. C-USA is fine the way it is, and C-USA West is already an exciting fun regional division.

Would the G5 conferences be much better being compact which could raise their image better instead of being spread out? You don't get a good tv market having all teams spread out and not competitive. You could get more people in the seats if the footprint is compact, and could have tv viewership if you have a pact stadium every week. Not what we are seeing in the ACC.

(05-08-2015 08:42 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 08:33 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 10:05 AM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 07:56 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 04:28 PM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  [quote='arkstfan' pid='12037577' dateline='1431009058']
[quote='johnbragg' pid='12036910' dateline='1430965463']


Western Conference - keeps Sun Belt name (can change name later):

UTEP
NMSU
UTSA
Texas State
Rice
Louisiana
S. Miss
N. Texas
LA Tech
Ark State

Eastern Conference - CUSA

Marshall
ODU
Charlotte
W. KY
MTSU
FIU
FAU
App State
GA State
GA Southern
S. Alabama
Troy

No.

The only people I ever notice promoting these restructuring schemes are Sun Belt fans. What is your problem with the Sun Belt? C-USA West is fine the way it is. C-USA West doesn't need to add ULL, ASU, TSU, NMSU, or ULM (who you failed to include), or change our name to the Sun Belt.

Some like to call C-USA 3.0 the new Sun Belt, but that isn't the case in C-USA West. Right now, North Texas is the only former Sun Belt school in the division. LA Tech and UTSA came from the WAC. C-USA West is a solid division. No need to change it.

The point was to create more regional based conferences that can generate actual rivalries, fans can more easily travel to games which generates better attendance with greater revenue, and of course lower travel costs as a result which greatly impacts the spring sports. Western and Eastern based conferences can add or subtract members as best fits their footprints. The Western Division of CUSA could be strengthened with western schools added to it. The same for the Eastern Division. Don't expect everyone to agree with it. Particular biases notwithstanding, regional conferences make much more sense, especially for G schools.

C-USA West is already regional and provides easy travel for most of the fans (sorry UTEP). I think your idea would weaken all our programs by creating conferences that would be too regional. In the current state of college football, a conference that is too compact and regional will struggle to command any real value for their television rights, and see very few games broadcast. That would put its programs at a greater disadvantage in recruiting and perception. C-USA is fine the way it is, and C-USA West is already an exciting fun regional division.

Would the G5 conferences be much better being compact which could raise their image better instead of being spread out? You don't get a good tv market having all teams spread out and not competitive. You could get more people in the seats if the footprint is compact, and could have tv viewership if you have a pact stadium every week. Not what we are seeing in the ACC.

I don't believe being more compact will elevate a conference's image. It might reduce travel costs, but I doubt it will do anything to elevate their image, or earn them more money. Networks are looking for conferences that can pull rating across the country. A compact regional conference won't help them. Playing exciting and entertaining games on national television will elevate the image of programs. The current structure of C-USA provides that platform.

C-USA West is already regional. North Texas, Rice, UTSA, LA Tech, and Southern Miss are easy locations to travel to. I think the 4 Texas programs do a good job of traveling to each others stadiums. Most of us have family in these large Texas cities. And, many of us work with alums from the other Texas universities in C-USA West. There is no reason to mess with the line-up.

Have you ever laid out what things would look like with regional conferences? It isn't always pretty:

Mountain West (12)
Western - Hawaii, San Diego State, San Jose State, Fresno State, Nevada, UNLV
Mountain - Boise State, Idaho, Utah State, Colorado State, Air Force, Wyoming

Southwest (14)
West - New Mexico, NMSU, UTEP, UTSA, Rice, North Texas, Tulsa
East - Louisiana, ULM, Lousiana Tech, Texas State, Houston, SMU, Arkansas State

Conference USA (12)
West - Tulane, Southern Miss, UAB, Memphis, Middle Tennessee, WKU
East - FAU, FIU, UCF, USF, Troy, South Alabama

American (12)
North - UConn, UMass, Army, Temple, Marshall, Old Dominion
South - Charlotte, App State, East Carolina, Navy, Georgia State, Georgia Southern

Mid-American (12)
West - NIU, Ball State, WMU, CMU, EMU, Toledo
East - Bowling Green, Ohio, Akron, Kent, Miami (OH), Buffalo

(05-08-2015 10:57 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Have you ever laid out what things would look like with regional conferences? It isn't always pretty:

Mountain West (12)
Western - Hawaii, San Diego State, San Jose State, Fresno State, Nevada, UNLV
Mountain - Boise State, Idaho, Utah State, Colorado State, Air Force, Wyoming

Southwest (14)
West - New Mexico, NMSU, UTEP, UTSA, Rice, North Texas, Tulsa
East - Louisiana, ULM, Lousiana Tech, Texas State, Houston, SMU, Arkansas State

Conference USA (12)
West - Tulane, Southern Miss, UAB, Memphis, Middle Tennessee, WKU
East - FAU, FIU, UCF, USF, Troy, South Alabama

American (12)
North - UConn, UMass, Army, Temple, Marshall, Old Dominion
South - Charlotte, App State, East Carolina, Navy, Georgia State, Georgia Southern

Mid-American (12)
West - NIU, Ball State, WMU, CMU, EMU, Toledo
East - Bowling Green, Ohio, Akron, Kent, Miami (OH), Buffalo

Switch Texas State with Tulsa. Texas State is in western texas. Tulsa is in eastern Oklahoma.
Army won't join AAC. Move one of the Ohio schools into the AAC. Toledo

Add to the MAC? Youngstown State, Illinois State, Northern Iowa, Liberty, North Dakota State. So a west team goes in. Northern Iowa, Illinois State or North Dakota State. Unless the AAC and one MAC school get raided by a P5 conference? The line up can change.

(05-08-2015 10:57 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Have you ever laid out what things would look like with regional conferences? It isn't always pretty:

Mountain West (12)
Western - Hawaii, San Diego State, San Jose State, Fresno State, Nevada, UNLV
Mountain - Boise State, Idaho, Utah State, Colorado State, Air Force, Wyoming

Southwest (14)
West - New Mexico, NMSU, UTEP, UTSA, Rice, North Texas, Tulsa
East - Louisiana, ULM, Lousiana Tech, Texas State, Houston, SMU, Arkansas State

Conference USA (12)
West - Tulane, Southern Miss, UAB, Memphis, Middle Tennessee, WKU
East - FAU, FIU, UCF, USF, Troy, South Alabama

American (12)
North - UConn, UMass, Army, Temple, Marshall, Old Dominion
South - Charlotte, App State, East Carolina, Navy, Georgia State, Georgia Southern

Mid-American (12)
West - NIU, Ball State, WMU, CMU, EMU, Toledo
East - Bowling Green, Ohio, Akron, Kent, Miami (OH), Buffalo

I hope C-USA can continue without any new changes, but if some should occur, I could see a modified version of what you have posted. The MWC unequal distribution model can't last, or some of the programs currently getting short changed could look for new opportunities. Right now, New Mexico, Air Force, and Colorado State seem to be earning next to nothing in bonus money.

If there comes a day when we see a realignment within the G5, and the eastern block of C-USA wanted to split, this line-up for a new "Southwest" conference could work for me:


Rice
North Texas
LA Tech
Southern Miss
UTEP
UTSA
New Mexcio
Air Force
Colorado State

The MAC is about as compact as you can get and what has that got them over the last four decades? A.) a reputation as a stagnant rust-belt conference with little potential; which belies the fact that they have strong programs across the board with schools that have made a number of runs at perfect seasons and N.ILL that has participated in BCS games.

No, compact only defines you as the region you happen to be in. I like the fact that we visit schools from the Appalachians to the Gulf Coast all the way to West Texas; that's called diversity.

(05-09-2015 12:08 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  The MAC is about as compact as you can get and what has that got them over the last four decades? A.) a reputation as a stagnant rust-belt conference with little potential; which belies the fact that they have strong programs across the board with schools that have made a number of runs at perfect seasons and N.ILL that has participated in BCS games.

No, compact only defines you as the region you happen to be in. I like the fact that we visit schools from the Appalachians to the Gulf Coast all the way to West Texas; that's called diversity.

If Cincinnati gets pick finally to a G5 conference? I could see either Toledo or Ohio U. get the call to replace The Bearcats in the AAC. Youngstown State could finally get the call that they have been waiting for. If others get picked? Northern Iowa, Southern Illinois, Illinois State, North Dakota State, Stony Brook or some others in the area could fill in. Buffalo and Stony Brook seem to have a good football game going. They could be in state MAC rivalry in all sports.

(05-08-2015 11:54 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 11:37 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The problem is you are moron seeing someone against you. Keep checking the shadows freak.

Not against me; I could care less about that. But the conference, now that concerns me. Shame that you've digressed to name calling when all I'm doing is pointing out that you keep planting the seed for a C-USA haircut with its new t.v. contract. We get it, say it once and stop dwelling on it (unless that's your m.o.).

I apologize you aren't stalking because I've posted numerous times CUSA could get a nice upgrade in money and contended that if Fox or NBC are truly serious about competing with ESPN one of them SHOULD pay more and carry more games. You can't be stalking because you would have seen me post that again and again. Some reason you have developed an irrational hate to post lying crap.

(05-09-2015 12:08 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  The MAC is about as compact as you can get and what has that got them over the last four decades? A.) a reputation as a stagnant rust-belt conference with little potential; which belies the fact that they have strong programs across the board with schools that have made a number of runs at perfect seasons and N.ILL that has participated in BCS games.

No, compact only defines you as the region you happen to be in. I like the fact that we visit schools from the Appalachians to the Gulf Coast all the way to West Texas; that's called diversity.

They got a BCS buster. They increased their TV rights value 500% and one of three leagues to post audiences of more than a million viewers for regular season games.

(05-09-2015 10:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-09-2015 12:08 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  The MAC is about as compact as you can get and what has that got them over the last four decades? A.) a reputation as a stagnant rust-belt conference with little potential; which belies the fact that they have strong programs across the board with schools that have made a number of runs at perfect seasons and N.ILL that has participated in BCS games.

No, compact only defines you as the region you happen to be in. I like the fact that we visit schools from the Appalachians to the Gulf Coast all the way to West Texas; that's called diversity.

They got a BCS buster. They increased their TV rights value 500% and one of three leagues to post audiences of more than a million viewers for regular season games.

Their old media deal wasn't worth anything, and are their fans really happy about the money they got to relegate most of their games to ESPN3?

I doubt being that compact helps the MAC in recruiting either.